Knowledge graph question answering (KGQA) and knowledge-graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (KG-RAG) aim to ground answers in explicit graph evidence, but real-world knowledge graphs are often sparse, outdated, and incomplete. Existing robustness evaluations usually report aggregate changes in answer quality after evidence is removed or perturbed, which measures sensitivity to incomplete support but leaves the source of degradation under-specified: the same score change can conflate the type of missing evidence, the response of the evaluated system, and the sensitivity of the answer-matching protocol. To address this gap, we propose \textbf{MissDiag}, a diagnostic evaluation framework for incomplete-knowledge robustness in KGQA and KG-RAG. MissDiag keeps the question and gold answer fixed while applying structurally typed missingness interventions to benchmark-provided support graphs, enabling paired comparisons that decompose robustness changes by evidence type, system response, and evaluation protocol rather than reducing them to a single aggregate score drop. Experiments across multiple system families show that incomplete-knowledge robustness is better understood as a typed degradation phenomenon than as a uniform property: answer-adjacent evidence loss produces the largest observed degradation, source-context removal is often neutral and can be beneficial, and semantic answer matching changes absolute scores while preserving the main typed degradation patterns. By transforming aggregate robustness measurement into typed diagnostic attribution, MissDiag provides a more interpretable basis for comparing, diagnosing, and stress-testing KGQA and KG-RAG systems under incomplete knowledge.
Knowledge graphs (KGs) are increasingly used as structured context for Large Language Models (LLMs), but industrial KG-RAG systems often need to integrate public and domain-specific KGs constructed from heterogeneous databases. This integration relies on Entity Alignment (EA), where lexical matching alone is insufficient under predicate-name variation and incomplete local neighborhoods. We address EA for KG integration by constructing a pairwise EA dataset and proposing two complementary modules: Predicate Importance Estimation (PIE) and Decoupled Rationale-Score Distillation (DRSD). PIE is a compact embedding-based approach that removes the subject information from each 1-hop triple, encodes the resulting subjectless triples, and aggregates them with learnable predicate-importance weights to build predicate-aware entity embeddings. DRSD trains a distilled small language model (SLM) with pseudo-answers produced by a teacher LLM through distinct prompts. By converting binary EA labels into text-based supervision and decoupling confidence-score estimation from label-consistent rationales, DRSD enables the SLM to learn task-specific reasoning while retaining a less label-biased confidence signal. Experiments show that PIE and DRSD improve EA classification. Moreover, because DRSD decouples confidence-score estimation from the decision, a discrepancy between the two flags an uncertain prediction for human review, thereby enabling a practical discrepancy between automatic acceptance and human-in-the-loop verification.
Knowledge Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG) enables natural language interaction with structured enterprise knowledge, yet existing agentic approaches that perform well on public benchmarks often fail to generalize to real-world enterprise Knowledge Graphs (KGs), which are dense, schema-driven, and operationally constrained. To address these limitations, we propose SCAIR (Schema-Conditioned Agentic Iterative Reasoning), a training-free framework that integrates structured planning with controlled iterative reasoning by injecting schema-conditioned structural priors and enforcing schema-aware traversal during multi-hop reasoning. Experiments on an enterprise-oriented benchmark constructed from a real-world Configuration Management DataBase (CMDB) demonstrate that SCAIR substantially improves performance over existing KG-RAG methods. Crucially, our study highlights that reliable enterprise graph reasoning cannot rely on generic agentic designs; instead, it must explicitly incorporate the target domain's structural and operational constraints into the reasoning process. We demonstrate that by aligning agent design with business logic, substantial performance gains can be achieved without the need for costly model retraining.